A multipolar world and a dispute about value priorities. Review of the XXI International Likhachev Scientific Readings

Nikonova Svetlana Doctor of Philosophy Professor of the Department of Philosophic and Cultural Studies at St. Petersburg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences 192238, Russia, Sankt-Peterburg, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Fuchika, 15 laresia@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

At the end of May 2023, a regular meeting of the forum "International Likhachev Scientific Readings" was held at the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions, according to a long-established tradition. As always, the forum was quite representative, gathered participants from different cities and countries who visited it both personally and joined in an online format. And also, according to the already established tradition, we present to the readers of the magazine "Philosophy and Culture" a small review containing a reflection on this event.

For many years, the topic of this forum has been devoted to the issue of dialogue and partnership between cultures, but for the second year the word "conflict" dominates in the name of the forum. It is interesting to trace the dynamics of changes in the subject of Readings since 1993, when academician D. S. Likhachev, together with the Rector of St. Petersburg State University A. S. Zapesotsky, initiated for the first time the holding of such an event, later named after D. S. Likhachev. The main topic of the Readings was the discussion of the sphere of humanitarian knowledge, humanitarian culture, humanitarian education and its role in the development of Russian society. In fact, the appeal to humanitarian knowledge and to a thorough study of cultural issues was associated with new processes in the domestic political sphere, its liberalization, appeal to human interests, to the importance of individual and cultural differences. This became possible in the context of the restructuring of public life and the value sphere carried out in the 1990s. Also an important component since the beginning of the 2000s has been the study and popularization of the creative heritage of the historian, literary critic, cultural critic D. S. Likhachev.

At the end of the 2000s, the main topic of the Readings was the dialogue of cultures, the issue of globalization was on the agenda. It was globalization, in fact, that was the basis for turning to a unified systematic study of processes in culture. Russia has entered a global space that inexorably draws the whole world into its intensive communication. But it can be assumed that the topic of globalization and the possibility of dialogue has become the main one not by chance. This happened at the moment when it revealed its internal problems and contradictions, began to raise serious questions that require starting the search for those ways of development that could become the most fruitful for all participants in this process. Since 2015, several meetings have been held under the sign of discussing new global challenges in opposition to national interests, which shows the aggravation of the contradictions that have arisen. The question arose about outlining the contours of the future, about the ways of world development in the emerging new conditions. Finally, in the last two years, after the pandemic, the topic has acquired a new character and a global conflict has turned out to be at the center. From which it can be concluded that the problems that were only outlined a couple of decades ago and were discussed were not solved, although they were identified. On the contrary, they have reached the conflict stage of aggravation. The current situation in the modern world is not accidental, is not a failure or the result of harmful decisions of specific people, but was something that developed naturally, which could have been foreseen, but which could not be avoided.

Nevertheless, if the Readings of 2022 were completely under the sign of conflict, then in 2023 there was hope for comparison and reflection. The main theme of the XXI International Dashing Scientific Readings was designated as "Dialogues and conflicts of cultures in a changing world". The readings were held on May 25-26, 2023. On the first day of the conference, a general plenary session was held, on the second day the discussion was divided into a number of sections. Section 1 was titled "Transition from unipolarity to real multipolarity: problems of new geopolitics"; section 2 – "Traditional values of humanity or the "new ethics" of the West? (ideologies, values, norms, morality in the fate of the modern world)"; section 3 – "Economy in the context of global changes"; section 4 – "Russia in the global world: a new stage of history"; Section 5 — "Russian education at the new turn of the epochs (dialectics of the past and the future). What Russia needs"; section 6 – "Law, values and morality in the context of modern global transformations". The sections met in parallel. The author of the review was a direct participant in Section 2. Thus, this review will focus on the problems discussed at the plenary session and at the second section devoted to philosophical, cultural and ethical understanding of the ideological transformations taking place in the modern world.

Conflict #1: a multipolar world or a unipolar world? (Plenary session)

The plenary session of the Readings was devoted to political discussion. The main topic discussed was the idea of multipolarity and criticism of the unipolar world order. In fact, within the framework of the Readings, there were no "discussions" as a confrontation of opinions, and there could not be, since in general all participants agreed with each other, differing only in accents and nuances of interpretations and proposals. The main pathos of the discussion was directed against the position not presented at the Readings. And it's not about any limited acceptance of applications, but about the internal conflict of modern society. Public sentiment has split to such an extent that representatives of opposing positions, in fact, simply cannot be represented at one event. There has been a radical polarization of public sentiment. Bearers of opposing beliefs do not gather in a single space to discuss them, do not consider it permissible, thus, the possibility of a dialogue of opposing positions is called into question.

The idea of multipolarity prevails in Russian society and in Russian political discourse, and it was this idea that was the basis of the discussion held at the Likhachev readings, and was supported by all their participants, both domestic and foreign.

It can also be defined as a trait that characterizes the current situation. Last year, the discussion at the plenary session of the Readings mostly concerned current political issues, criticism of specific political actions, primarily the actions of Western countries, and also significantly touched upon the need to formulate ideological guidelines. This time the discussion was more ideological, and the idea of a multipolar world acted as a positive alternative to the existing conflictogenic processes.

The unipolar world is a single system, including an ideological one, corresponding to the political and economic globalization produced over the past centuries by Western countries, with the unconditional dominance of the Western system of values in both morality and politics. Thus, the West thinks of itself as the center of the unipolar world, in the perspective of modern political realities, its leader is the United States of America, claiming control over the value system of all mankind. Unipolarity is, first of all, ideological unipolarity, and the obvious transition to it occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, this transition was prepared much earlier, since the principles developed by the Western world already lay at the foundations of the Soviet system. The universalization of culture, in fact, was carried out as a result of the successes (scientific, political, economic, artistic, military, etc.) of the development of European civilization already in the XIX century. Moreover, the basis of universalization was not only the economic and political colonization of various territories of the world by Western countries, but also enlightenment, dialogism, the introduction of humanitarian principles, the development of a system of humanitarian knowledge by Western thought – perhaps even more than the effectiveness of natural science achievements. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Western policy of universalization has been so successful and, ultimately, this system of values has been accepted in many ways voluntarily and enthusiastically. Nevertheless, in modern conditions, the negative political consequences of this established system have manifested themselves. After all, it is the Western system of values that asserts diversity, tolerance for different ways of life, and democracy as the dominant. And it is precisely these priorities, in fact, that should serve as an obstacle to the establishment of unipolar political domination. In a sense, multipolarity is a consequence of these values! But at some point it becomes obvious that these values are being used to establish strict political control. At this very moment, the confrontation of value multipolarity and political unipolarity comes on the agenda. And the conflict completely passes to the level of real politics.

A very sharp formulation of this transformation was given in his report by the Swiss participant of the Readings, President of the United Chamber of Commerce and Industry "Switzerland - Russia and CIS Countries" G. Mettan: "In conclusion, we can say that the West practices what I call pandemocratism, that is, a totalitarian vision, an armed democracy, which is used to spread the imperial hegemony of the West to the whole world. Pandemocratism has nothing to do with democracy, but it has to do with its use as a tool in achieving geopolitical goals… Pandemocratism pretends to favor democracy at the level of nation-states, but, oddly enough, prohibits it at the supranational level, imposing a dictatorial model of world governance under the guise of democracy. In this sense, it is the complete opposite of a multipolar world, which presupposes supranational democratic governance of the planet as a necessary condition for the freedom and sovereignty of peoples and states" ^{[1, 9-10]}.

Thus, the researcher captures the inconsistency of the demand of supporters of unipolarity: in fact, putting the democratic way of the world order at the center of the value hierarchy, the Western world insists on a completely undemocratic system of real world organization.

If you think about it, this inconsistency is not new at all, we can say that it has been logically traced since ancient times, and we can see a similar problem in the contradiction between ancient politics based on democracy and political fragmentation, the diversity of competing policies, and ancient metaphysics, consistently pursuing the idea of searching for a single origin-arche, which led to The result is the fall of democracy, unification into a single empire and the creation of a universal world system with a monotheistic religion of a single transcendent God. It can be assumed that in such a perspective, the advantages and disadvantages of the different sides of this contradiction can no longer seem so unambiguous.

In general, supporters of the idea of unipolarity often refer to the fact that political multipolarity is a path to anarchy, to continuous conflict and war. Therefore, in fact, they advocate the idea of a single order, which means a single empire. At the same time, the "imperial" ambitions put forward by other state and value systems are naturally assessed as hindering this order, and therefore subject to condemnation and destruction. This is the logic of all empire builders.

All the more interesting is the fact that not only domestic critics of the Western political system, such as G. Mettan and other foreign participants of the Readings, as well as many critical Western thinkers, insist on multipolarity, but also representatives of states that disagree with the imposition of a Western type of democratic form of government on them. But in fact, the rational demand they express is that their right to political self-determination (for example, to remain a dictatorship) should be perceived as their cultural identity and original expression of will, and their possible "imperial" ambitions should be recognized as equal permissible goals of the struggle of geopolitical subjects. This is an absolutely democratic demand. That is, the "democratic" Western world insists on undemocratic unipolarity and hegemony of one system, and the "non-democratic" traditional world opposing it insists on democratic multipolarity. As a result, it seems that interstate relations with intra-state ideologies are about the same degree of "compatibility" as physical processes at the macro- and microcosm levels described by modern science.

Ultimately, due to the contradictory demands, the struggle moves to the level of asserting one's position as a position of "good" in the fight against someone else's position as "evil", which leads to a radical polarization of political ideologies and their carriers. Meanwhile, the values expressed on both sides, in fact, are kept within the same framework. For example, you can listen to the words of another Swiss participant of the conference, the President of the International Peace Research Institute in Geneva, who strongly criticizes Western policy and welcomes the idea of a multipolar world, G. Galis: "We must all defend our peoples, unite against any empire, and build a truly democratic Europe" ^{[2, 11]}. In terms of values, a representative of at least one of the parties to the conflict could hardly disagree with these words. To agree with them or not depends on which side the one who uttered them turns out to be on, from the point of view of the evaluator: on the side of "good" or on the side of "evil". How can "good" and "evil" be so relative?..

Conflict #2: New ethics or traditional values (breakout session)

So, we could see that, although there is a political conflict, some questions may arise regarding the value conflict. It is all the more important to turn to the sphere in which this conflict and confrontation are most obvious. It was the split of the modern world community in the sphere of values that was dedicated to the session of the section, which called the participants to philosophical and ethical-cultural discussion.

The session of the section was conducted by the Director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy A. A. Huseynov and the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Culture, Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Honored Artist of the RSFSR E. G. Drapeko. In a brief introductory speech, A. A. Huseynov reminded the audience that values do not arise by chance, and called on everyone who understands this problem to take great responsibility in this matter.

The general background of the discussion was determined by the discussion of an acute and extremely relevant conflict for the current situation, which has recently reached a level of exceptional tension, revealing up to a certain point the contradictions that were not so obvious. This is a conflict between new ethical trends in the Western world and supporters of traditional values.

The speakers' opinions were generally divided into three positions. There were those who, following the call of A. A. Huseynov, first of all tried to comprehend the reasons for the emergence and development of Western ethical trends – the so-called "new ethics" and the "culture of abolition" following it. There were those who paid more attention to the analysis of traditional values. And there were those who devoted themselves to criticizing the "new ethics" and analyzing its negative impact on humanity. The level of emotionality of the speeches showed that the affected problem very vividly worries and worries all the speakers.

It can be said that the emotional background here was the key factor in the unfolding of the discussion. But often increased emotional involvement can be an obstacle to a rational analysis of the problem.

The emotional charge of the statements of the majority of participants can be illustrated as an example by the words from the report of the Doctor of Cultural Studies, Professor of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions A. P. Markov: "The new ethics ... turns into an institution of ethical degradation and active atrophy of the moral instinct. It becomes a project of self-apocalypse, a scenario of a man-made eschatological tragedy..." ^{[3, 6]}. In general, most of the speakers agreed with this position. Moreover, it can be assumed that such a sharp assessment in moral terms is caused not so much by the existing political confrontation, which we talked about in the previous paragraph, and which was discussed at the plenary session, namely, a deep rejection of the values proposed by the "new ethics", a sincere horror of these innovations. But in this sense, one can come to the curious conclusion that the rejection of the "unipolar" dictate is rather a consequence of the strengthening of the new ethical agenda, and not, on the contrary, the agenda is rejected because of political disagreement. Thus, it is difficult to imagine a more powerful anti-propaganda of the hegemony of the West than the introduction of these value orientations for the domestic audience. However, the result of this emotional rejection is that, together with the frightening Western agenda, an attempt is being made to discard or refuse to recognize those Western values that were viewed extremely positively before the emergence of the "new ethics". There is a reason for this, because if we turn to the study of the causes of the formation of new value series, for example, the "culture of cancellation", then we can see how they quite naturally logically follow from the development of the structure of the most liberal-democratic Western project. And so, if we don't like the consequences, then it would seem that we should abandon the causes as well?

And here there is a snag, because few people are actually willing to give up on these very "reasons", or maybe it's impossible to do it at all. The most consistent in this matter are the traditionalists, who call for a return to pre-modern times, abandoning all the values of European modernity. The traditionalist movement is currently quite well developed in Russia, but these trends are no less strong around the world. Moreover, these are quite old ideas related to the internal self-criticism of European culture. One of the most outstanding examples is M. Heidegger's criticism of the entire history of Western thought after the pre-Socratics, that is, starting with an appeal to metaphysics. One of the most radical examples is anarcho-primitivism in the style of the American philosopher J. Zerzan ^[4], who believes that humanity has taken the wrong path leading to insoluble conflicts existing in modern society, already starting with the transition from gathering and hunting to agriculture, which doomed it to constant hard work associated with accumulation of reserves, uneven distribution of resources and social inequality (in short, Zerzan calls for a return to the primitive state, considering the entire history of civilization a mistake, and he is not alone in this call). Well, there are a huge number of thinkers who believe that the "wrong turn" is connected with the development of Western European culture, with its mechanicism, subjectivism, relativism, both in Europe itself and beyond. However, as we can see, there is no agreement among traditionalists as to which stage of cultural development should be returned to. For example, a dispute also arose between the speakers of this section: is it worth looking for the traditional origins of Russian culture in the Orthodox past of Ancient Russia or in pre-Christian times?

But we must admit that even in the already quoted report of the pronounced traditionalist A. P. Markov, there is a call for moral responsibility of a person, giving him the ability to get out of a state of crisis (the speaker says: "The resource for getting out of a crisis is the limitless possibilities of a person who, in "borderline" situations of history, has always shown a high bar of moral responsibility, saving the world from descent into the abyss of violence"), accompanied by a reference to the German existentialist thinker K. Jaspers ^{[3, 6-7]}.

In general, most of the reports clearly demonstrated that the values of freedom, equality, fraternity, personality, balance between the personal and the public, existential responsibility, dialogue, respect for the other, and most importantly, the possibility of rational analysis, developed by the European modern, are the refuge in which one can only seek salvation. The main criticism directed at the "new ethics" is, in fact, that the "new ethics" produces a rejection of these beautiful humanistic values.

Here we can recall some of the ideas of D. S. Likhachev, who argued that "Russian culture has always been a European culture in its type and carried all three distinctive features associated with Christianity: a personal beginning, receptivity to other cultures (universalism) and the desire for freedom" ^{[5, 32]}. In this quote, the thinker, whose name the past Readings are named after, makes it clear where, in his opinion, Russian traditional values should be sought: this is the very Christian tradition that does not oppose, but connects us with Europe, and all European values are connected with this source. Likhachev sees the main feature and the main culture-creating force of the Christian religion in the fact that God has become a person here. And he finds the main source of cultural failures, the source of "evil" in the hypertrophied development of one of these three principles as opposed to the others. These periods of hypertrophy and imbalance can be easily detected in both Russian and European history, but they do not mean that these foundations themselves or any of them, showing negative results of their development at one time or another, should be "canceled". As one of the speakers correctly noted during a free discussion, a mirror response to the "culture of cancellation" is in itself a dangerous step. Very true in the context of this train of thought was the observation made by a senior lecturer at the Department of Russian Philosophy and Culture at the Institute of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences E. M. Gashkova, who also believes that the values of Russia and the West essentially coincide: the culture of abolition, first of all, is aimed at the abolition of historical memory, the rejection of from historical thinking ^[6]. But it was it that was a characteristic feature of European civilization, which allowed it to perceive the experience of different cultures and, thanks to this, to become the center of all world processes for a long time!

Russian Russian culture In general, the question of which values are traditional for Russian culture is certainly controversial, because Russian culture is extremely rich and has a long history, and also, during this history, it has encountered a large number of influences, entered into a large number of contacts and, one might say, was at the intersection of many cultural processes. The dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles well expresses this problem that has not been solved for centuries. But this only means that when building value priorities, we cannot be superficial or one-sided in any way and should not obey impulses related to current political situations.

The main thing that I would like to preserve, and that, in the heat of conflict, is increasingly lost behind the ideological and political confrontations of the modern world, is respect for the difference of points of view and the ability to have a sound rational discussion. Whether it belongs to an ancient tradition or the result of modernization and liberalization of consciousness, in any case, this is exactly what, perhaps, would allow us to get out of the state of crisis and abandon the tendency to turn the image of our enemy into the embodiment of "evil", to which all parties to the conflict are now often inclined.